AUTHOB 


8061  '12  -NVr  IW 

•opuig 
pjBoqssajj 


BULLE  TIN 

THE    COLLEGE    CONFERENCE    ON    ENGLISH 

in  the 

CENTRAL  ATLANTIC  STATES 

January,  1921 


U.-...-U    c^..J 


THE  BIBLE  AND  THE  CLASSICS 
AS  A   LITERARY  BACKGROUND 

cADDRESSES 

DELIVERED  AT  THE  MEETING  OF  THE  CONFERENCE 
AT  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  ON  NOVEM- 
BER 27,  1920 


^ 


PUBLISHED     BY     THE     COLLEGE     CONFERENCE 

NEWARK    DELAWARE 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from^ 

IVIjcrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/bibleclassicsaslOOhincrich 


"^  Bible  and  the  Classics  as  a  Literary 
Background 

By  Walter  8.  Hinchman,  Haver  ford  College 

All  teachers  of  English  are  familiar  with  the  young  man  who 
admits  no  recognition  when  he  comes  upon  such  a  line  as 

"she  would  have  ta^en 
Achilles  by  the  hair  and  bent  his  neck;" 
with  the  other  young  man  who  hears  belbind  Teninyson's 
' '  Push  off,  and  sitting  well  in  order  smite 
The  siounding  furrows" 
no  echo  of  Virgilian  phrajse;  and  with  the  third  gentleman  who  is 
surprised  that  he  should  be  expected  to  know  whom  Milton  could 
po>ssiibly  have  had  lin  mind  when  he  spoke  of 

*  *  That  shepherd,  who  first  taught  the  chosen  seed '  * 
from  * '  the  secret  top  of  Ordb  or  of  Sdnlai. ' '  These  young  people, 
for  ithey  are  not  all  of  one  sex,  are  meriely  symbols  of  an  ignorance 
wQiii'ch  goes  a  liong  way  towards  making  Milton — to  mention  the 
chief  among  many — la  shut  book  to  the  modern  world.  There  is  a 
story  that  a  professor  ait  one  of  our  largest  nniversities  discovered 
that  no  one  in  a  group  of  Juniors  and  Seniors  could  identify  Judas 
Iscariot;  exasperated,  he  cried  out:  ** Gentlemen,  is  there  anyone 
in  the  room  who  has  heard  of  Jesus  Christ ! ' '  The  fact  that  one 
student  toiok  the  question  serionsly  and  raised  his  h^and  is  humor- 
ous, if  yiou  like ;  but  the  story,  as  Garlyle  would  have  said,  is 
''significant  of  much."  The  obvious  argument,  drawn  from  the 
facts,  is  that  English  tdache-ils  should  encourage,  perhaps  demand, 
at  leas/t  a  bowing  acquaintance  with  the  two  chief  sources  of 
allusions  in  Englisih  literature. 

But  ithis  argument  does  not  appeal  to  me,  for  two  reasons.  In 
the  first  place,  though  I  agree  that  such  acquaintance  on  the  part 
of  the  student  would  help,  it  happens  that  the  Claries  which  the 
majority  of  our  students  study  do  not  by  any  means  supply  them 
with  the  infiormlatiion  necessary  to  an  identifieatiion  of  the  greater 
number  of  the  allusions  in  their  Enl^lish  literature.  Those  who 
have  been  through  enough  Ca&sar,  Virgil,  and  Cicero  to  pass  the 


entrance  examdnations  lappear  <to  be  sure  of  only  the  veiry  oommon- 
est  namieis,  sueh  as  Achilles,  Aeneas,  Juno.  If  they  dJo  get  some- 
thing  of  the  force  in  the  line, 

**she  could  have  ta'en 
Achilles  by  t-he  bair  and.  bent  his  neck, ' ' 
they  are  usually  put  to  rout  by  the  very  next  verse : 
*'0r  with  a  finger  stay'd  Ixion's  wheel.'' 

The  same  -tihing  is  true  to  some  extent  lof  what  they  retain  of 
tbe  Bible.  Moses,  David,  and  Job  can  still  be  identified,  if  not  with 
precision,  but  such  imj^otntant  figures  as  Rebecca  and  Ruth,  Joshua 
and  Samuel  are  little  more  than  nameis.  In  the  next  place,  so  far 
as  this  inform'atiional  plea  is  concerned,  I  believe  itoo  heartily  in 
the  value  of  the  Classics  and  of  the  Bible,  both  for  themselves  and 
for  their  usefuLtiesls  las  literary  (backgrounds,  to  be  content  when 
their  diiampionte  rest  the  case  with  this  and  associated  arguments. 
Such  a  feeble  •cotnitention  las  that  the  Classics  and  the  Bible  supply 
tbe  student  with  indispensable  information,  together  with  the 
mental  discipline  largument  for  the  one  and  the  moral  argument 
for  the  'Other,  has  done  much,  to  my  mind,  to  discredit  both.  It 
proves  too  little ;  it  naise^  the  damaging  suspicion  th<at  'all  has  been 
said.  Furtlhermore,  the  ground  of  this  argument  has  been  well 
ploughed  and  salted.  It  does  not  seem  profitable  to  consume  ain- 
other  half-Jhour  in  citing  an  imposing  list  of  passages  which  Milton 
and  others  have  taken  from  the  Bible  and  the  Classics. 

Much  the  same  fault  may  be  found  with  tftie  etymology  theory. 
It  is  desirable,  lof  course,  that  our  studemts  sihould  have  a  nice 
sense  for  shadeis  of  meaning,  that  they  should  know,  for  example, 
what  Stevemsioin  meiains  by  ''a  fine  series  of  acoideaits  in  the  day's 
career ; ' '  but  unless  they  are  fairly  steeped  in  the  Classics,  they  do 
not  seem  to  accumulate  from  their  work  a  sufficient  inheritance  to 
justify,  for  this  alone,  the  study  of  G^reek  .and  Datin.  What  I 
mean  is  that  I  am  not  convinced  that  a  boy  lor  girl  who  has  studied 
Latin  is  lany  more  likely  than  one  who  has  not  to  refrain  from 
using  ''aggravate"  in  the  sense  of  ''provoke"  or  to  give  the  proper 
meaning  to  "horrid"  when  Satan  with  bold  words  broke  "the 
iLorrid  sEence.",  At  'all  events,  though  I  reoogniize  the  value  of 
both  the  informiation  and  the  etymology  theories,  I  feel  that  we 
must  rest  our  dase  for  the  Classics  ion  more  secure  grounds. 

Just  now  I  have  been  speaking  exclusively  about  Latin  and 
Greek.  If  we  consider  for  a  momieoit  two  arguments  in  favor  of  the 
Bible,  "we  may  find,  I  think,  that  the  main  'conltenitions  in  its  favor 
are  in  reality  the  chief  arguments  for  the  Classics.  The  second  in 
ptoint  of  acquisitioai  I  mention  first  because  it  is  the  more  famliliar. 

4 


I  refer  to  a  feeling  for  what  the  Freiwih  oompa<jtly  call  '  *  phrase. ' ' 
Illustration  is  hardly  necessary;  we  all  recognize  that  the  simple 
language  of  our  English  Bible  is  wovein  inito  the  pattern  of  our 
best  Englis'h  style,  into  the  writings  of  Drydetn  and  Swift,  as  well 
as  those  of  Buinyan;  of  Maculay  and  Rusbin,  las  well  as  those  of 
Lincoln.  I  can  think  of  no  better  antidote  for  the  lure  of  oheap 
literature  than  the  feeling  of  simple  dignity  which  must  gradually 
possess  the  mind  of  a  man  who  reads  'his  Bible  aloud,  or  hears  it 
read, — mot  for  information,  not  for  moral  solace  (proper  and  fitting 
as  these  may  be),  but  for  the  vividness,  restraint,  and  harmony  of 
the  language.  In  other  words,  dt  is  not  m'erely  that  (the  readeir 
should  be  able  to  identify  Biblical  allusions  which  abound  in  Bacon, 
JMilton,  Bunyan,  and  others ;  it  is  rather  that  he  should  recognize  a 
familiar  BibMcal  inflieriitance  in  such  sentences  as  the  following: 
**And  mysteries  and  presences,  innumerable,  of  living  things, — 
these  may  yet  be  here  your  riches;  untormenting  and  divine; 
serviceable  for  the  life  that  now  is ;  nor,  it  miay  be,  without  promise 
of  that  which  is  to  eome. ' ' 

"What  ds  the  virtue  in  this  reminiscence  of  ithe  Biblical  phrase  f 
Whait  is  its  peculiar  value  ?  The  psychology  of  it  is  rather  dusive ; 
but  we  dan  at  least  feel  its  value  if  we  cannot  always  explain  it. 
Somehow  such  style  seems  the  breath  of  life  to  what  DeQuincey 
called  the  ** literature  of  power."  A  recent  critic  of  Shakespeare, 
in  pointing  out  that  certain  ideas  and  emotions  need  appropriaite 
language,  that  language,  in  point  of  fact,  informs  thougtht  almost 
as  much  as  thought  prescribes  language,  has  used  the  phrase, 
* ' oorresponding  speech."  If  Hamlet,  in  his  last  words  to  Horatio, 
must  break  -into  the  ''sheer  splendour  of  speech,"  in  order  thait  the 
Words  may  **  correspond "  to  the  emotion,  so  the  iniheritors  of  our 
Biblical  language  may  be  said  to  accompiliish  the  sheer  dignity  of 
utterance,  the  only  speech  which  exactly  ''corresponds"  to  the 
simplicity  and  ' '  high  seriousness ' '  of  their  thought. 

The  other  argument  I  wMi  to  emphaszie  springs  from  the  fact 
that  the  English  and  American  people  have  not  only  a  peculiar 
literary  inheritance  in  Biblical  style,  but  an  equally  uniique  moral 
and  intellectual  inheritance.  Overdrawn  as  John  Richard  Green's 
picture  may  be  when  he  says  that  England  in  t«he  seventeenth  cen- 
tury .became  a  niation  of  one  book,  we  do  not  have  to  remind  our-' 
selves  that  not  merely  our  religious  distinotions,  but  in  large  me^as- 
ure  the  current  of  our  moral  and  intellectual  life,  e\'-en  today, 
springs  from  the  absorption  of  our  ancestors  in  the  Bible.  In  the 
seventeenth  century  it  dominated  a  great  pant  of  our  literature,  of 
Jeremy  Taylor  as  well  as  of  Bunyan ;  in  the  eighteenth,  it  fed  the 
evangelical  reaction  ^aga^lst  a  tottering  rationalism ;  and  it  became 
the  ark  and  the  covenant  of  the  entrenched  religions  in  Victorian 
days.    Indeed,  much  of  the  literature  of  the  pasit  three  centuries 


must  remiain  meaningless  to  those  wbo  are  unfanii'lrar  wifth  the 
book  which  gave  it  niot  only  style  but  subst^ance.  A  foreigner  may 
well  questdmi  George  Eliot's  art;  niovels,  he  might  say,  s^hould  not 
make  us  feel  (that  their  be-iall  and  end-all  is  mortality.  But  English 
readers  know  that  George  Eliot  was  doing  the  most  n'atural  thing 
in  the  worid  for  an  English  person,  thiat  she  was  following  a  tradi- 
tion stronger  than  herself.  Similarly,  our  popular  cratieism  of 
literature  is  frequently  governed  by  the  same  inheriitamce :  witness 
the  praise  long  given  to  the  poetry  of  Longfellow  because  it  enunci- 
ates mioral  eomf ort ;  the  * '  P^alm  of  Life, ' '  a  commoaiplace  piece  of 
work,  is  far  better  known  <than  \a  greater  piece  of  writing  like  ' '  The 
Skeleton  in  Armor."  Or,  to  take  an  example  of  how  the  tradition 
directed  hostile  criticism,  recall  the  conviction  with  which  English- 
men 'assumed  (that  the  poetry  of  Byron  must  be  bad,  as  poetry, 
because  they  did  not  lapprove  of  his  life ;  the  Weltgeist  Goethe,  or 
their  own  Swinburne,  a  questionable  person,  might  praise  Byron's 
poetry  in  vain;  it  was  not  till  Matthew  Arnold,  of  unquestion- 
able probity,  insisted  ttiiat  it  had  great  merit  that  they  were  able 
to  see  its  "splendid  and  imperisihable  excellence  of  sincerity  and 
strength. ' ' 

Now  the  same  (arguments  that  suppont  a  study  of  the  Bible  for 
liteTary  backgrounds, — that  is,  to  develop  tappreciation  of  the 
style  'and  understanding  of  the  meaning  of  the  English  literature 
written  during  the  past  three  centuries, — iseem  to  me  the  very 
reasons  why  our  stud  em  ts  sihould  ^tudy  the  Classics  for  background 
purposes.  The  case  for  style  is  simple  and  obvious  enough,  how- 
ever complicated  >an  analysis  of  the  ingredients  miay  be.  From 
Bacon  to  Tennyson  the  classiioal  turn  of  phrase  permeates  our  best 
literature.  The  objeetion  still  radsied  in  some  quiarter's  is  not  to  the 
fact,  and  the  value  of  such  study  in  order  to  appreciate  English 
style  is  not  seriously  questioned ;  but  there  is  la  widespread  eonten- 
tion  that  tr*anslations  of  the  Classics  <are  sufficient.  I  wonder 
whether  it  is  still  necessary  to  lay  that  ghost.  There  is  a  story  that 
on'ce  when  the  Paris  cabmen  had  agreed  not  to  turn  a  w'heel  during 
lunch  hour,  a  lady  in  distress  on  a  rainy  day  besought  a  gallant 
driver  to  make  just  one  exception.  He  could  not  bear  to  eause  the 
lady  displeasure  or  pain,  but  he  must  obey  the  Union  rules.  He 
proteisted  that,  as  for  himself,  he  would  be  only  too  glad  to  oblige 
a  lady ;  in  fact,  nothing  gave  him  more  diseomf ort  than  to  appear 
discourteous  to  a  lady;  ''but,"  he  added  daintily,  — ^'mais  mon 
petit  estomac,  il  ne  le  vent  pas/'  Turn  that  answer  into  English, 
German, —  any  language  you  like, — ^it  will  not  pass  mulster;  it  is 
wlhoUy  French  'and  must  be  s/aid  in  French.  How  shall  we  hope 
to  give  our  students  a  senise  for  the  felicity  of  Virgilian  phrase  or 
for  the  periodicity  of  Ciceiro  through  translation,  through  circum- 
Idcution  and  paraphrase?     Tennyson  Mm^self,  with  all  his  happy 


gift  of  translation,  does  not  attempt  to  remder  ''venusta,'*  hope- 
lessly beyond  even  him,  an  his  lines  to  Catullus  (and  ''olive-silvery 
Sirmio:" 

* '  Row  us  out  from  Desenzano,  to  your  Sirmione  row ! 

So  they  row  'd,  and  there  we  landed — '  0  venusta  Sirmio ! '  ' ' 

The  other  point,  that  of  our  intellectual  inheritance,  is  more 
complicated  beteause  the  resultant  of  the  Bible  tradition  and  the 
Classical  tr'adition  is  a  mixture  of  sdmilariities  and  contradiehions. 
There  is  no  need,  even  if  there  were  time,  to  g^ive  the  present  com- 
pany -a  detailed  laceount  of  the  influence  of  thesie  two  sets  of  writ- 
ings on  the  thinking  of  'the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  oentuTi.es, 
or  of  the  coimpiosate  result  in  tlie  nineteenth  centurj^,  but  it  may  be 
well  to  iremiind  ourselves  of  the  more  outstandinig  features,  if  only 
to  siee  the  whole  proiblem  in  connection  with  the  study  of  the  Bible 
and  the  Classics,  and  to  appreciate  the  force  of  the  argument  in 
their  favor. 

The  interest  in  the  phenomena  and  natural  laws  of  this  world, 
an  interest  natui^ally  bred  of  the  humanistic  development  in  the 
fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  gives  us,  as  every  sidhoolboy 
knows,  a  clear  beginnling  for  what  we  eall  modepn  science  and 
marks  an  equally  clear  depairture  from  the  mysterious  formulae  of 
the  Middle  Ages.  The  development  of  a  rationalisitic  philosophy 
and  out  of  that  of  an  easy-going  secularism  is  also  an  obvious  con- 
sequen'ce.  Following  this  line  of  development,  we  find  many 
phases  of  the  middle  eighteenth  eentury  clear  as  crystal.  It  is  not 
perturbing,  either,  to  meet  a  counter-Renaissance,  with  a  gradually 
gathering  Puritanism  and  a  later  Evangelicalism  to  step  in  when 
it  h>ad  run  its  course.  Nor  does  it  surprise  us  to  find  the  strong 
Bible  tradition  joining  hands  with  an  off -shoot  of  the  fundam-ent- 
ally  ho'stile  Classsieal  tradition  and  making  humanitarianism  out  of 
humiamism.  We  can  move  serenely  enough  through  these  phases  to 
the  Age  of  Romanticism,  with  its  strong  humanitarian  eolor.  But 
'^v'lien  we  begin  to  set  an  (isolated  Humanitarianism  against  Human- 
ism, or  Romanticism  per  se  against  Classlioism  per  se,  we  find  our- 
selves in  a  somewibat  aoadeinic  and  futile  exercise.  We  disicover, 
in  fact,  that  these  two  phases  of  our  development  are  not  isolated, 
but  complexly  blended;  that  the  two  do  not  run  pa'rallel  nor  yet 
succeed  on,e  another ;  that  both  inheritanlces,  incongruously  enough, 
have  during  the  nineteenth  century  beioome  inseparable  oom- 
pianions.  What  lis  more,  thougih  Humianism  and  Humanitarianism, 
Rationalism  and  Transicendentalism, — 'and  other  large  terms — 
may  be  oonvenlient  philosophic  labels,  they  lose  in  their  impurity 
and  confusion  much  of  their  identity.  At  times,  the  one  amounts 
to  little  more  than  small  lo'gic ;  the  other,  to  little  more  than  un- 
ne^cessary  tears.  We  must  recogniize  the  fact  thalt  they  exiist  only 
in  composite  and  adulterate  forms. 


Toward's  this  complex  resuiltaait  shiould  be  added  of  course  a 
multitude  of  minor  forces.  Not  least  by  any  means  is  the  man  in 
whom  ithe  forces  work,  the  liberated  individual,  who  in  suocessiive 
geaierations  siirace  'tihe  Bemaissamc'e  has  grown  increalsingly  consciious 
of  scilf,  of  his  majestic  desttdny, — ^to  m-ake  fit  ancestry  for  the 
miodern  superm-an.  Beautifully  sim^ple,  then,  as  the  development 
may  appelar  viewed  in  one  of  its  phases,  it  becomes  startlingly 
complicated  when  we  view  it  as  a  com.posiite  inherit'ance,  not  only 
of  ourselves,  but  in  some  measure  of  everyone  since  those  moment- 
ous sixteenth  land  sevententh  centuries.  We  have  to  recognize  the 
astonishing  fact  that  the  process  set  in  motion  by  Erasmus  is  re- 
sponsible for  both  Francis  Bacon  and  William  Jennings  Bryan. 

My  contention,  then,  in  brief,  is  that  the  greater  part  of  our 
thought  begins  abruptly  with  the  Renaissance,*  that  the  sixteenith 
and  seventeenth  centuries  have  been  the  chief  source  of  that 
thought,  'and  that  to  understand  this  source  land  the  literature 
which  reflects  it  our  students  must  become  familiar  with  the  two 
greatest  informiing  forces  lof  those  cerituries — the  Classics  aoid  the 
King  James  Bible.  To  teach  English  literature  to  young  men  and 
women  igniorant  lof  these  things  is  like  teaching  the  wool  business 
to  a  mlan  who  doeisn't  know  a  ^heep  from  a  goat. 

So  far  I  have  concemed  myself  only  with  certain  arguments 
in  favor  of  the  ^tudj;^  of  the  Bible  and*the  Classics  a^  literary  hack- 
grounds.  Arguments  in  favor  of  them  for  their  own  sakes — and 
I  believe  that  there  is  still  much  to  be  said  on  that  score — are  not 
our  affair  in  the  present  discussion.  But,  whatever  the  grounds  on 
which  they  are  taught,  the  question  of  hoiv  they  are  taught  is 
obviously  of  vital  interest  to  the  English  teacher.  Details  of 
method  I  shall  have  to  leave  largely  to  di^ussiion,  for  the  half -hour 
at  my  disposial  has  nearly  -run  its  course,  but  I  should  like,  in  con- 
clusion, to  ventuire  a  few  suggefeltions. 

First,  the  teiaching  of  the  Classics.  The  reasons  I  have  ad- 
vianced  in  favor  of  them  imply  not  only  a  familiarity  with  the 
language,  in  o»rder  to  aippreciate  the  stj^e  of  English  writings,  but 
also  a  knowledge  of  a  far  wider  range  of  reading  than  can  relason- 
ably  be  covered  in  the  oiriginial  'texts.  This  second  implication  at 
once  denuands  a  great  deal  of  reading  in  translation, — a,  more 
widely  extended  reading,  to  include,  let  us  say,  the  chief  authors, 
Greek  and  Latin,  who  made  the  background  of  Petrarch  and 
Erasmus.    This  reading,  moreover,  should  be  accompanied  by  much 

*  It  is  a  contradiction  of  terms,  of  course,  to  say  that  any  development 
begins  abruptly;  one  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  both  Eenaissance 
and  modern  inheritances  from  the  Middle  Ages,  especially  as  regards  literary 
content,  are  considerable.  At  the  same  time,  the  modern  world,  except  in  the 
case  of  a  few  conscious  students  of  the  past,  is  curiously  shut  off,  particularly 
in  the  direction  and  habit  of  its  thought,  from'  the  intellectual  experience  of 
the  thirteenth  century. 

8 


discussion  of  the  ideas  set  fourth ;  tlie  studeaiit  must  undeo'sitaiid  the 
experieniee  of  ithe  Arwjieait  World,  tand  myt  only  of  the  convention- 
ally Classioal  per*iods,  but  of  Alexandirfian  times.  Clelarly,  only  the 
more  narpative  poii:iions  of  this  reading  «md  the  sampler  discussions 
can  be  puit  in  the  secondary  school,  but  I  feel  that  a  good  deal  could 
be  aiocomplished  df  the  work  were  coorddnated  with  history  and  if 
the  teac^hers  of  the  Clasisdcs  would  shifit  their  emphasis.  At  present, 
in  the  majority  of  schools,  girammar  is  given  the  diief  emphasis, 
accurate  reading  of  a  few  pages  is  given  next  place,  and  an  under- 
standinig  of  how  the  Ancients  Mved,  of  how  they  thought  and  felt, 
is  ocoaisionally  thrown  m  df  there  is  timie. 

By  ftjhis  I  do  not  mean  that  we  should  abandon  study  of  the 
language,  nor  minimize  it  to  a  smattering.  Peirsonally,  I  should 
like  to  see  more  time  given  to  the  Classics,  but,  even  with  present 
schedules,  much  time  could  be  gained  if  less  devotiion  were  paid  to 
the  di^plinary  value  of  Latin  grammar,  if  grammatr  were  always 
taugtht  .as  a  me'ains  to  an  end.  In  a  ithree-year  course  of  four 
periods  a  week  in  the  high  school,  practically  the  whole  of  the  first 
year  oonild  be  devoted  to  languiage,  and  half-time  (or  two  periods 
a  week)  in  subsequent  yea,rs  to  language  and  Ithe  translation  of 
original  texts.  The  difficulty  does  not  lie  mainly  in  the  disciplin- 
ary bogey,  however;  it  lies  partly  in  the  college  entrance  require- 
menlts,  which  force  a  meticulous  intimacy  with  regular  verbs; 
and  in  the  lack  of  oomipetent  teachers  of  ithe  Cliassics.  The  first  of 
these  difficulties  'can  be  eliminuated  if  itihe  colleges  see  fit.  The 
second  can  be  eliminated  only  when  s'chook  eease  to  delegate  the 
teaxjhing  of  the  Classics  to  amiable  young  men  and  women  who  can 
t^ch  nothinig  else,  who  know  the  grammar  by  heart,  a  little  Caesar, 
Virgil,  and  Cicero,  'and  nothing  else.  In  the  college,  Latin  or 
Gretek  should  be  required,  in  my  oipinion,  of  all  Freshmen  prepar- 
ing for  the  A.  B.  degree ;  and  there,  if  the  grammar  f etis'h  is  not 
still  set  up,  quite  50  per  cent,  of  the  coume  could  be  devoted  to  the 
reading  and  study  of  translated  Classics. 

It  will  be  objected,  I  know,  that  such  a  eourse  would  spread 
itself  too  vaguely  over  a  vast  area.  It  would  derftainly  not  be  an 
easy  course  to  teach ;  the  technique  of  it  has  not  been  worked  out. 
But  this  same  'difficulty  has  confronted  teachers  in  newer  subje<jts, 
such  as  English  and  the  Sciences.  When  English  teachers  dis- 
covered about  a  generation  ago  that  they  were  really  teaching  a 
sort  of  Latiu  made  easy,  they  set  about  making  a  vital  interpreta- 
tion of  'thiedr  subject ;  and  when  they  found  that  the  new  interpre- 
tation left  them  without  the  old,  comfortable  technique,  they 
struggled  on  towards  a  neiw  :technique.  They  'are  still  struggling ; 
their  tedhnique  is  still  very  erude;  but  it  is  certainly  to  their 
eredit  that  they  did  not  return  in  despair  to  the  easy  futilities  of 
their  youth.    I  maintain  that  the  Cliassi'cs,  if  they  are  to  survive, 

9 


mus/t  be  given  la  new  interpretation  im  sicliools,  witlh  thie  empihiasis  on 
the  ideas  which  they  contain  and  itilie  life  whidi  they  shadow  forth ; 
and  this  initerpretation  mieianls  a  mew  type  of  teiacher  and  a  new 
technique. 

In  the  case  of  the  Bible,  we  cannot  rely,  especially  in  public 
schools,  on  any  definite  instruction  out  side  of  the  English  class. 
Even  in  private  sichools,  B.ible  inisitruotion  is  usually  so  obscured 
by  religious  ends  that  the  book  does  mot  take  on  the  character  of  a 
human  documient.  I  have  repeatedly  found  boys  of  eighteen,  after 
five  yeiars  of  so-^called  ''Bible  Study,"  unaware  that  the  Book  of 
Ruth  differed  in  purpose  or  style  from  the  Book  of  Job.  We  must 
give  time  from  ithe  English  allotment  to  the  study  of  the  Bible  as 
literature,  and  we  must  force  it  by  requirement  into  the  schools. 


Five 'Minute  Discussions 

How  Can  the  Student  Secure  a  Knowledge  of 
the  Classics  ? 

At  the  outset  I  wish  to  state  that  it  is  my  belief  that  in  any 
education  that  is  to  be  both  broad  and  deep,  that  is  to  possess,  so 
to  speak,  botlh  horizontal  and  vertical  values,  a  knowledge  of  the 
classics  must  be  a  constituent  element.  Yet  only  a  brief  expeirience 
as  a  college  instructor  in  literature  is  necessary  to  discover  that  it 
is  futile  to  refer  to  the  classics  to  illuminate  any  phase  of  our  own 
literary  history;  from  the  average  student  the  only  response  an 
instructor ,  receives  is  an  uncomprehending  stare.  This  ignorance 
becomes  all  the  more  serious  when  we  bear  in  mind  the  real  nature 
of  the  loss  sustained  by  the  student  through  this  prevalent  neglect 
of  the  classics.    As  I  see  it,  this  loss  is  threefold. 

A  first-hand  acquaintance  with  the  actual  content  of  classioal 
literature  would  again  and  again  vitalize  the  student's  under- 
standing of  lOur  literature.  The  study  of  Chaucer,  of  Shakespeare 
and  his  contemporaries,  and  especially  of  the  Augusitans  would  be 
immeasurably  enriched  by  such  a  knowledge.  Appreciation  of  the 
finer  mock-heroic  flavor  in  Hudihras,  in  The  Battle  of  the  Books,  in 
The  Rape  of  the  Lock,  and  in  many  a  hilariously  burlesque  passiage 
of  Fielding  must  now  depend  on  some  instructor's  spoon-feeding. 
This  is  but  a  makeshift,  tand  a  pretty  contemptible  one. 

More  serious  is  the  fact  that  a  student  is  without  a  knowledge 
that  would,  to  his  profit,  infinitely  lengthen  his  histordic  perspective. 

10 


Ignorance  now  threatens  to  narrow  his  consciousness  of  our  cul- 
tural history,  to  foster  his  indifference  to  origins,  and  to  destroy 
•his  sense  of  spiritual  and  intellectual  sympathy  waith  the  greatest  of 
races.  Even  a  man  who  voted  for  Harding — I  voted  for  the  heroic 
vanquished — must  agree  with  President  Wilson :  *  *  Your  enlighten- 
ment depends  on  the  company  you  keep.  You  do  not  know  the 
world  until  you  know  the  men  who  have  possessed  it  and  tried  its 
wares,  hefore  you  were  given  your  brief  run  upon  it. ' '  And  in  this 
realization  that  he  is  the  humble  inheritor  of  tihis  an'cient  culture 
is,  I  feel  assured,  an  excellent  disicipline  for  the  assertive  student 
of  our  time.  I/t  'Chastens  the  flippant  and  unintelligent  individual- 
ism that  loathes  nothing  so  much  as  to  be  reminded  of  its  duty  to 
respect  the  past. 

The  student  suffers  still  another  lossi :  the  power  to  under- 
stand and  ito  enjoy  those  finer  qualities  that  are  the  soul  of  classie 
art — balianlce,  reitioemee,  anid  the  serene  beauty  of  disciplined 
emotion.  It  is  only  a  sense  for  the  abiding  charm  of  these  qualities 
that  can  counteract  the  appeal  of  so  much  that  is  meretricious — 
the  jazz,  the  piundh,  the  pep — in  contemporary  art.  In  literature 
this  plebeian  passion  for  excess  appears  as  a  brutal  realism  or  a 
languorous  'romanticism;  in  painting  .as  the  geometric  fervors  of 
the  cubists;  in  music  as  the  cacophon]ous  literalism  of  the  com- 
positions that  are  now  coming  out  of  Russia  and  Italy.  Surely 
something  would  seem  to  be  at  fault  in  the  education  of  a  student 
who  does  n'ot  protest — ito  use  Pater's  admiTJable  phrase — ''against 
the  stupidity  wihieh  is  dead  to  the  substance  and  the  vulgarity 
which  is  dead  to  form." 

I  regret  tliese  losses  because  I  feel  ithat  the  study  of  literature 
alwaj^s  rests  on  the  edge  of  an  intellectual  precipice;  it  may  fall 
into  a  shallow  impressionlism'  or  into  an  over-mucih  concern  about 
mere  books,  dates,  land  biographies.  The  larger — may  I  say? — the 
nobler  correlations  possible  (su'ch  as  might  be  assured  witJi  a  train- 
ing in  the  classics),  the  stronger  the  expectation  that  the  study  of 
literature  will  be  kept  in  the  realm  of  ideas.  I  feel  that  advanced 
courses  in  English  eispecially  should,  if  possible,  have  in  them 
something  of  the  point  of  view  of  coimpanative  literature,  some 
suggestion  that  tendencies  that  have  appea;red  in  English,  have 
had  paralMs  in  other  countries  and  at  other  tinnes.  Dean  West 
has  said:  "And  no  education  is  the  best  which  does  not  aim  at 
universiality,  which  does  not  acquainit  the  student  with  all  the 
great  categories,  very  few  in  number,  which  we  must  miaster,  if  we 
are  to  undersitand  ourselves  and  our  world  lin  origin  and  progress. ' ' 
Yet,  if  we  are  hottiest  with  ourselves,  we  must  confess  that  among 
English  students  there  is  an  amazing  ignoranice  of  sueh  general 
conceptions  as  sentimenitalism,  optimism,  pessimism,  individualism. 
How  miany  graduates  in  English  can  tell  when,  how,  and  why  these 

11 


tendorMjies  .Imve  manifested  itjheniiselveis  m  our  literature?  Litera- 
ture is  supposed  to  'be  a  >critioisttn  of  life,  but  yet  there  is  only  a 
hialf-knowledge  of  those  general  terms  that  destoribe  fundamental 
and  recurrent  attitudes  toward  humam  experience. 

These  are  the  values  that  the  studenit  loses  Iby  his  neglect  of 
the  elassics.  Where  are  we  to  look  for  help  to  remedy  this  condi- 
tion? Ironically  enough,  not  to  the  teachers  of  Greek  and  Latin. 
They  have  had  their  oppoirtuinity,  and  the  majority  have  failed 
miserably.  Too  many  are  mired  in  Alexandrianism,  and  do  not 
oommuoiicate  the  sfpirit  of  their  subject.  Not  for  adventitious 
reasoins,  mental  discipline,  training  in  loigic,  philological  practice, 
must  the  classics  be  studded ;  one  does  not  examine  The  Last  Judg- 
ment or  Mona  Lisa  to  secure  knowledge  of  the  composition  of  the 
pigmeu'ts.  Most  pungently  a  distinguished  Latiaist  of  this  Uni- 
versity has  said :  '  *  I  should  no  more  think  of  studying  those  lan- 
guages purely  for  mental  disicipline  than  of  marrying  a  wife 
purely  foir  oharaoter-building  and  the  development  of  Stoic  forti- 
tude." With  an  unsparing  sense  of  reality,  Milton  puts  the  case 
thus- :  *  *  And  though  a  linguist  shiould  pride  himself  to  have  all  the 
tongues  that  Babel  deft  the  world  into,  yet  if  he  have  not  studied 
the  solid  things  in  them  as  w^ell  ^as  the  words  and  lexicons,  he  were 
nothing  so  much  to  be  esteemed  a  learned  man  las  lany  yeoman  or 
tradesman  eoniipetently  wise  in  his  mother-dialect  only."  The 
point  is  that  the  classics  musit  be  studied  as  a  source  for  ideas  if  we 
would  not  do  a  profound  injustice  to  their  ereaters  by  putting 
them  to  a  use  for  which  they  were  not  intended.  But  enough  of 
this  matter  about  which  I  feel  very  strongly  and  about  w'hich  so 
much  more  might  be  said.  Perhaps  I  should  add,  however,  that  I 
do  not  speak  as  an  outsider,  but  as  an  alienated  friend  of  the 
classics,  for  it  was  in  this  field  that  I  began  my  teaching. 

The  remedy  I  have  to  suggest  is  not  oiriginal.  It  has  already 
been  adoj>ted  in  some  colleges  and  universities.  English  depart- 
ments must  givte  courses  in  the  classics  in  translation.  I  am  per- 
fectly aware  of  the  inadequacy  of  a  translation  as  compared  with 
the  original.  But  ean  we  believe  that  a  student  who  pieices  together 
a  gawky  translation  by  means  of  the  dictionary,  more  successfully 
catches  the  subtle  discriminations  of  his  author  ?  I  doubt  it.  One 
advantage  is  evident;  with  the  English  depfairtment  in  charge,  the 
work  could  readily  be  shaped  to  bear  upon  our  own  literature. 
Moreover,  the  loss,  sustained  by  the  use  of  translations,  might  be, 
and  could  be,  'repaired  by  a  parallel  examination  of  those  arts  in 
which  less  diminution  of  value  was  suffered,  due  to  the  conditions 
of  study.  The  knowledge  of  the  inner  spirit,  the  soul  of  the 
classics,  can  be  supplied  by  a  course  in  Greek  civilization,  and 
especially  of  its  art — vases,  sculpture,  and  architecture.  It  is 
gratifying  to  disscover  with  what  vigor  of  interest  a  student  is 

12 


attracted  to  these  mattera.  No  apology  is  niecessary  for  such  a 
correlation  lof  Jiitenajture  and  the  plastic  airts.  The  perception,  on 
the  part  of  the  student  of  literaiture,  of  such  a  fundamental  unity- 
is  thie  beginning  of  true  education;  to  multiply  i>erceptions  of  a 
similar  chlaracter  is  to  (build  the  foundation  of  true  culture.  Until 
we  bridge  the  gap  ibetween  the  ancient  world  and  the  student  of 
our  own  time,  we  are  cutting  him  off  from  a  means  of  enriching 
his  mind,  'Cultivalting  his  taste,  and  deepening  his  spiritual 
sympathies. 

B.  Sprague  Allen, 

New  York  University 


C_y4  Course  in  Classics  in  Translation 

I  wifeh  to  speak  this  morning  on  a  Course  in  the  Classiics  in 
Translation,  a  course  which,  I  think,  may  be  justified  on  the 
principle  that  if  the  mountain  will  not  come,  to  Mohamet 
Mohamet  must  go  to  the  mountain.  If  the  students  in  our 
colleges  will  not  study  the  classics  in  the  original  languages, 
we,  as  educators,  must  take  the  classics  of  Greece  and  Rome  to 
them  in  our  own  language.  The  increasing  number  of  courses  in 
the  classics  in  translation  seems  to  show  that  this  generation  is  in- 
terested in  the  classics  and  is  willing  to  make  an  honest  effort  to 
understand  them  v/hen  they  are  presented  in  this  form.  In  view 
of  this  faJct  I  feel  it  would  ndt  be  out  of  place  to  discuss  briefly 
the  purpose  and  content  of  such  courses.  They  should  not  be  con- 
sidered as  substitutes  for  the  study  of  the  literature  of  Greece  and 
Rome  in  the  original  languages,  but  should  rather  be  oonsideped  as 
courses  of  study  for  those  wiho  do  not  undferstand  the  languages  or 
have  not  advancefd  to  such  a  point  that  'they  could  profit  by  read- 
ing the  works  of  the  ancients  in  the  original.  Although  something 
of  what  we  may  call  the  original  genius  of  the  literature,  a  sort  of 
intangible  flavor,  is  lost  in  the  study  of  these  works  in  translation, 
nevertheless  we  have  sufficient  translations  in  Englisih  which  are 
good  both  in  fidelity  to  the  original  and  in  reproduction  of  the 
spirit  of  the  work  to  make  sucli  a  course  worth  while. 

The  authors  to  fbe  read  and  the  extent  of  the  reading  in  such 
a  course  as  this  will  depend  largely  upon  the  amount  of  time 
allotted  to  the  course.  The  basic  principle,  however,  should  be 
kept  in  mind  at  all  timies :  the  course  is  to  furnish  literary  back- 

13 


ground.  It  should  not  concern  itself  with  'the  miinu'tiae  of  scholarly 
criticism  on  the  -wiorks  studied ;  it  should  laim  rathier  lat  knowledge 
and  appre>ciation.  For  -this  reason  I  believe  thie  student  should  be 
introduced  to  la  number  of  the  great  works  of  antiquity,  presented 
in  som'e  sort  of  logieal  order,  rather  than  oarried  through  a  com- 
plete outline  of  Greek  .and  Latin  literature  'and  made  expert  at 
names  of  autihors  of  whose  works  we  have  only  fragment.  Such  a 
course  should  doncern  itself  with  the  epic.  Homer  and  Virgil; 
witih  the  drama,  tihe  great  four  of  Greece,  land  Plautus  'and  Terence 
of  Rome;  with  non-dram.iatic  poetry, — and  here  the  Greek  must 
necessarily  be  fragmentary,  but  the  Romans  are  well  represented 
by  Horace,  Ovid,  Juvenal,  and  others;  land  with  prose  in  i-ts 
various  fields,  but  especially  in  those  of  philiosiophy  land  oratory. 
A  course  built  upon  such  a  plam  las  this  ougtht  upon  completion  to 
have  given  the  student  something  of  what  we  vaguely  term  'liter- 
ary background. ' ' 

This  literary  background,  however,  will  have  been  only  half 
constructed  if  the  instructor  fails  to  connect  the  ancient  writers 
with  those  of  our  own  tonlgue.  A  course  in  the  classics  in  transla- 
tion presents  lan  excellent  means  of  showing  the  .influenee  of  the 
classics  on  English  literature  and  of  broiadening  the  student's 
knowledge  of  Englisih  writers.  For  instance:  Aeschylus'  Prome- 
thus  Bound  at  once  suggests  the  reading  of  Shelley's  Prometheus 
Unbound;  Plautus'  Jfenaec/imiV  Shakespeare's  Comedy  of  Errors; 
Euripides'  Medea,  William  Morris'  Life  and  Death  of  Jason;  the 
whole  of  Greek  drama,  Milton 's  Samson  Agonistes;  Plato 's  Re- 
public, and  Xenophon's  Cyropaedia,  More's  Utopia  and  Bacon's 
New  Atlantis;  Plutarch's  Moralia,  Bacon's  Essays;  and  so  on, 
for  the  list  is  lonig.  If  the  student  should  happen  to  be  familiiar 
already  with  any  of  these,  so  much  the  better,  for  the  process  of 
learning  is  much  aided  by  the  coupling  of  the  known  and  the  un- 
known. Incidentally  the  student  may  frequently  be  led  to  wander 
in  by-paths  of  literature  which  otherwise  would  lie  neglected. 
Indeed,  this  second  part  of  the  course  is  of  almost  as  great  value  as 
the  first  part,  for  it  helps  to  reanimate  the  ancient  literature  which 
so  many  peopile  think  is  dead. 

To  teach  such  a  course  as  I  have  outlined  the  instructor  should 
have  special  preparation,  preparation  which  is  based  on  a  much 
broader  foundation  than  that  of  a  reading  of  the  translations  in 
the  Bohn  or  Loeb  libraries.  He  must  be  a  student  of  the  classics 
who  has  read  widely  in  English  literature,  or  a  student  of  Eng'lish 
literature  who  has  read  widely  in  the  classies  in  the  original.  The 
instructor  must  know  Greek  and  Latin,  for  he  must  have  an  ade- 
quate undersitandin'g  of  and  feeling  for  the  spirit  of  those  lan- 
guages 'amd  peoples.  This  I  feel  can  be  gained  only  through  a 
study  of  the  original  works.    For,  if  the  course  is  to  be  more  than 

14 


a  mere  readinig  of  a  required  ntimber  of  (books  in  English,  the  in- 
structor must  supply,  as  best  he  can,  those  elements  whi<j:h  will 
produce  what  we  usually  eall  a  classical  atmosphere. 

In  this  cannectiotn  and  in  eontelu&ion  I  wissh  to  quote  a  few 
sentenoes  from  Sir  Ar»thur  Qiuiller-Couch 's  On  the  Art  of  Beading. 
He  siays:  "But,  althougih  a  student  of  English  literature  be 
ignoi^ant  of  Greek  land  Latin  las  languages,  may  he  not  have  Greek 
and  Latin  literature  widely  opened  to  him  by  intelligent  transla- 
tions ?  The  question  has  oiften  been  a^ked  but  I  ask  it  again.  May 
not  same  translations  open  a  door  to  him  by  which  he  can  see  them 
through  an  atmosphere,  and  in  that  atmosphere  the  authentic  gods 
walking :  so  that  returning  upon  English  literature  he  may  recog- 
nize them  there,  too,  walking  and  talking  in  a  garden  of  values  ? ' ' 
Sir  Arthur's  question  is  so  framed  as  to  demand  an  affirmative 
reply;  and  many  of  us  agree  with  the  affirmation. 

F.  M.  K.  Foster, 

Delaware  College 


The  Historical  Development  of  Literature 

It  is  yooir  misfortune  that  I  have  no  prepared  speech.  I  felt 
sure  I  eould  recruit  from  the  abundance  of  my  pred'Coessors ;  and, 
since  we  are  here  to  discuss,  it  is  perhaps  as  well  that  some  of  us 
should  discuss.  I  therefore  seize  upon  a  remark  of  my  good  friend 
Hiinohm'an's — "The  greater  part  of  our  thought  begins  abruptly 
with  the  Renaissance."  I  think  I  eould  sstage  a  very  vigorous 
mock-com'bat  with  him  over  this  point.  It  would  be  largely  a  mock- 
combat,  since  we  could  doubtless  settle  our  apparent  differenees 
quite  amicably  in  the  course  'of  a  few  minutes'  conversation. 

I  am  no  believer  in  abrupt  beginnings  or  abrupt  endings — ex- 
cept in  the  case  of  five-minute  speeches.  I  believe  that  our  teach- 
ing of  literary  history  suffers  from  the  fact  that  it  conveys  to  the 
minds  of  the  students,  by  reason  of  necessary  divisions  into  cen- 
turies, into  periods,  subjects,  courses,  a  wholly  wrong  sense  of  be- 
ginnings and  endings,  and  far  too  little  of  the  more  valuable  siense 
of  contintiity.  Among  the  many  things  which  it  might  be  desirable 
to  teach  in  conne'ction  with  literature  there  is  at  least  one  thing 
which  we  can  teach,  and  that  is  the  'historical  development  of  liter- 
ature, its  movem-ent  in  time  and  place.  This  is  not  the  only  thinig 
to  be  taught,  nor  necessarily  tlie  best  thing,  but  it  has  always 

15 


seemed  to  me  somethin'g  very  nearly  e^ential,  and  -at  any  rate  it  is 
teachable. 

In  the  lease  of  Eng-lish  literature  I  venture  to  think  tbat  we 
teach  ithis  historical  development  fairly  well.  And  at  precisely  this 
poiat  there  is  a  strikin'g  contrast  to  what  was  my  experience  with 
the  teaohinig  of  Latin.  I  termiaated  my  study  of  Latin  in  college 
with  a  feeling  that  Latin  literature — or  perhaps  rather  the  *  *  class- 
ical" literature  whi^ch  found  full  expression  in  Greek  and  was 
echoed  in  La^tin — was  the  perfect  pearl  in  the  otherwise  rather 
commonplace  oyster  of  this  world.  Apart  from  a  conning  of  the 
grammar,  the  study  lof  the  -classics  seetoed  to  concern  itself  so 
much  with  thie  reoonstruetion  of  ancient  civilization — that  is  an 
inheritanice  from  the  Renaissance — ^with  the  topography  of  the 
Forum  or  the  Acropolis,  with  the  procedure  of  the  law  courts  and 
the  conduct  of  military  campaigns,  that  it  was  only  after  a  good 
many  years '  study  of  modern  literatures  that  I  was  able  by  myself 
to  set  up  some  sort  of  connection  between  them  and  those  of  the 
ancient  world. 

I  feel,  therefore,  that  this  static  vjiew  of  'classical  literature, 
which  seems  to  be  the  one  which  gets  to  the  average  student,  how- 
ever far  removed  such  a  view  may  be  from  thiat  held  by  some  ex- 
cellent teachers  of  the  classics,  is  a  reason  for  the  lamented  absence 
of  fruitful  relations  between  what  have  'come  to  be  regarded  as  two 
separate  and  distinct  subjcts.  I  feel  it  to  be  a  duty  of  teachers  of 
English  to  establish  such  relations.  I  think  it  is  the  duty  of  some- 
body, somehow,  to  make  clear  the  development  of  Latin  literature 
somewhat  after  the  fashion  th-at  the  development  of  English  liter- 
ature is  made  clear.  Then  the  relations  between  the  two  could 
quickly  enough  manifest  themselves. 

Is  the  student  ever  likely  to  hear,  either  in  English  courses  or 
in  Latin,  that  the  Romans  whom  we  know  looked  back  with  re- 
spect upon  a  classical  literature  labout  which  we  know  very  little  ? 
that  Cicero  felt  at  the  outset  of  his  career  a  deep  sense  of  dis- 
couragement because  the  great  days  of  oratory  were  over  ?  that  he 
met  in  his  youth  the  last  representative  of  the  great  Roman  tragic 
tradition?  that  Vergil  leaned  heavily  upon  a  great  epic  tradition 
of  which  we  know  only  scraps  ?  that  Horace  felt  a  superiority  to 
his  predefoessor  in  satire,  Lucilius,  in  one  thing  and  one  thing  only 
— form,  polish?  Plainly,  the  Augustan  Age  of  Queen  Anne  is 
Augustan  by  its  intention,  by  its  attitude,  if  not  by  its  accomplish- 
ment. 

Horace's  Epistle  to  Augustus  is  a  plea  for  modem  literature — 
how  old  does  a  poem  have  to  be  before  it  is  good  ?  Might  not  a 
student  be  made  aware  of  the  triumphant  recognition  which  this 
modern  literature  secured  for  itself  in  the  first  century,  of  the 
universal  admiration  not  only  of  Horace  and  Vergil,  but  of  Seneca 

16 


and  Luoan  ?  Might  he  not  'advantageously  hear  soonething  of  the 
change  of  -taste  in  the  next  century,  and  then  of  the  rise  of  Chris- 
tian poetry,  so  significant  for  a  literature  ithat  contain  Caedmon 
and  Milton,  of  the  work  of  the  great  formulators,  Ambrose,  Augus- 
tine, Jerome,  in  the  fourth  century,  and  of  the  epitomizers  like 
Boethius,  Gregory,  and  Isidore  in  the  sixth?  Would  he  not  be 
interested  to  know  something  of  the  revival  of  letters  under  Charle- 
magne through  the  agency  of  Alcuin  of  York,  projected  against  a 
background  of  the  Irish  contribution  to  Europeaji  letters?  Vv^'ould 
it  not  be  desirable  for  him  to  know  that  one  reason  why  the  study 
of  literature  did  not  better  prosper  in  the  meidieval  universities 
was,  'apart  from  unequal  competition  with  coinnmercial  and  in  a 
sense  scientific  studies,  'the  large  amount  of  really  good  modem 
Latin  literature  which  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries  pro- 
duced, good,  that  is,  for  the  particular  purposes  of  the  twelfth  and 
thirteenth  centuries?  So  the  story  might  be  carried  on  with  very 
considerable  advantage  to  the  student  of  Bacon  and  of  Milton. 
I  do  not  pretend  to  say  how  much  of  this  should  be  taught,  nor 
how,  indeed,  it  should  be  taught,  but  if  a  student  could  have  an 
opportunity  to  form  some  such  concept  as  this,  no  matter  how 
inadequately  furnished  with  desirable  detail  it  might  here  and 
there  be,  he  would  be  in  possession  of  a  principle  of  thinking  which 
would  carry  him  further  and  faster,  a^  opportunity  presented 
itself,  than  he  could  possibly  go  without  it;  he  would  know  where 
to  place  such  information  as  he  might  later  acquire. 

Harry  Morgan  Ayres, 

Columbia  University 


The  Classics  for  their  Own  Sake 

''Classics  in  the  background"  has  a  rather  ominous  sooind, 
but  after  all  it  still  leaves  us  a  little  space  on  the  stage.  However, 
if  we  are  to  serve  our  purpose  there,  we  ought  to  know  who  is  at 
the  footlights.  To  drop  the  figure,  the  Classics  cannot — and  should 
not  be  asked  to — aid  High  School  English  literature  chiefly,  nor 
even  the  required  college  English,  which  usually  comes  in  the 
Freshman  year.  No  foreign  language,  least  of  all  an  ancient  one, 
can  be  mastered  in  time  to  provide  a  considerable  grasp  of  its 
literature  in  the  high  school.  If  a  foreign  literature  is  to  be 
ni'astered  in  time  to  serve  the  needs  of  the  teacher  of  ''required 

17 


Eniglish,"  we  must  resort  to  transMions.  Unfortunatly,  transila- 
tions  are  very  seldom  literature — ^one  bas  only  to  read  Milton  in 
Italian,  Blake  in  French,  or  Keats  in  German  to  see  how  impossible 
that  solution  is. 

The  Classics  are  needed  as  a  background  for  English,  but  it 
must  be  the  English  of  'the  long  years  of  reading  in  and  after 
college.  That  is,  after  all,  the  time  for  which  we  are  all  preparing 
the  pupil.  As  soon  as  we  demand  that  our  colleague's  subject 
must  be  made  to  serve  the  immediate  ends  of  our  own  'courses  in 
high  school  and  college  we  are  in  danger  of  wrenching  his  work 
away  from  its  proper  object.  Shall  the  mathematician  be  com- 
pelled 'to  limit  himself  to  trigoniometry  at  the  demands  of  engineer- 
ing schools ;  or  shall  'the  biologist  b&  oonfiuied  to  entymology  to 
satisfy  the  agricultural  department? 

"Wlien  this  subject  is  discussed  we  often  hear  the  criticism  that 
the  clas^sics  have  been  used  too  long  as  a  language  drill.  This  we 
are  ready  to  confess  and  have,  in  fact,  long  confessed.  We  were 
formerly  too  prone  to  olinig  to  leisurely  methofds  devised  at  a  time 
when  the  drill  was  followed  by  years  of  wide  reading.  Now  the 
period  at  our  disposal  has  been  cut  down.  We  have  been  'compelled 
to  telescope  our  course  very  much  in  consequence,  and  we  have 
done  so.  I  wish  particularly  to  point  to  a  custom  now  growing  in 
our  colleges  of  giving  a  large  part  of  the  college  Sophomore  (or 
even  the  Freshman)  courses  in  Greek  and  Latin  to  a  history  of  the 
literature.  In  such  courses  goodlj^  selections  of  the  best  poetry  and 
some  prose  are  read  in  the  original,  while  translations  are  used 
frankly  to  cover  a  bulk  of  material  important  for  the  content 
rather  than  form.  Much  oif  the  tilting  at  would-be  gerund-grind- 
ing is  about  twenty  years  out  of  date.  In  fact  the  classical  teacher 
long  ago  found  that  he  had  to  step  into  the  breach  left  by  his 
colleagues  and  teach  Greek  and  Roman  history,  philosophy,  reli- 
gion, politics  and  economics,  as  well  'as  literature.  This  leaves  him 
little  tim-e  for  syntactical  obscurities.  I  think  it  will  be  found  that 
in  iour  best  schools  and  colleges  the  men  in  -classics  are  now  teach- 
ing the  Greek  and  Latin  literatures  not  as  curious  repositories  of 
ablatives  and  subjunctives  but  as  artistic  expressions  of  human 
thought  'and  feeling. 

There  is  a  point  at  which  you  can  aid  us  to  get  better  results. 
A  large  number  of  the  school  superintendents  and  principals  of  to- 
day have  been  brought  up  by  schools  of  pedagogy  which  are  tainted 
with  the  modem  utilitarian  doctrines  of  education.  They  are  not 
giving  literature  its  due.  To  be  specific,  they  are  doing  their  ut- 
most to  kill  the  classics  by  putting  this  work  into  the  hands  of 
inferior  teachers.  You  oan  help  us  by  insisting  that  in  your 
schools  the  teacher  of  language  and  literature  be  as  carefully  se- 
lected and  as  highly  paid  as  those  of  other  branches. 

18 


Finally,  I  beg  that  we  all  adopt  the  broad  platform  of  educa- 
tion. We  eanniot  do  justice  to  our  subject  if  we  must  get  quick 
results  for  the  use  of  other  departments.  "We  wish,  as  you  do,  to 
give  our  students  a  solid  foundation  ui>on  which  they  can  continue 
to  build  securely  for  a  life  time. 

Tenney  Frank, 
The  Johns  Hopkins  University 


19 


Officers  gf  the  Conference 
1920-1921 


Chairman 
Professor  E.  P.  Kuhl  Groucher  College 

Y ice-Chairman 
Proffesor  H.  M.  Ayres  Columbia  University 

Secretary -Treasurer 
Professor  W.  0.  Sypherd  Delaware  College 

Other  Members  of  the  Executive  Committee 

Professor  Christabel  Fiske  Vassar  College 

Professor  J.  C.  French    The  Johns  Hopkins  University 


Copies  of  this  Bulletin  may  be  had  of  the  Secretary-Treasurer  at  the  nominal 
price  of  ten  (10)  cents  a  copy. 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CD2DflMaOSl 


JOOk  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL   BE  ASSESSED    FOR    FAIL Mrp  •rr^    r,.^ 
THIS    BOOK    ON    THE   DATE  DUE     THE   PE^AL^ 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  In  THE  FOUR™ 
OVERD^^^    -    *■•-    ON    THE    SEvi;^:™ 


JAN  17   1947 


1^fP-30-^ 


*^  -K 


RECEIVED 


rt^^ 


4^i^ 


25Mi?49Er 


uMMm. 


—ilWW 


iUG- 


f 


NOV 


II 


DEC  1  2  ibGBT* 


^ECciRc  Uu<.  -i.  1989 


«i 


I 


